Govern by law, not faith

[Woodmonkey]

Govern by law, not faith

The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on Wednesday in a case that could have a broad impact on whether the courthouse door remains open to ordinary Americans who believe that the government is undermining the separation of church and state.

The question before the court is whether a group seeking to preserve the separation of church and state can mount a First Amendment challenge to the Bush administration's "faith- based" initiatives. The arguments turn on a technical question of whether taxpayers have "standing," or the right to initiate this kind of lawsuit, but the real implications are serious. If the court rules that the group does not have standing, it will be much harder to stop government from giving unconstitutional aid to religion.

Soon after taking office, President George W. Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and faith-based offices in departments like justice and education. They were intended to increase the federal grant money going to religious organizations, and they seem to have been highly effective. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and several of its members sued. They say that because the faith-based initiatives favor religious applicants for grants over secular applicants, they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government support for religion.

The courts must decide whether the plaintiffs have the right to sue in this case before they can consider the constitutionality of the faith- based programs. An appeals court has ruled, correctly, that the plaintiffs have standing.

Procedural issues like standing can have an enormous impact on the administration of justice if they close the courthouse door on people with valid legal claims. The Supreme Court should affirm the lower court's ruling and move on to the important question: Do Bush's faith-based policies violate the Constitution?

The Source

[Manchu34]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

The Supreme Court should affirm the lower court's ruling and move on to the important question: Do Bush's faith-based policies violate the Constitution?

The Source

IMO, yes. However, I would like to see the USSC give a ruling that isn't vague, like they usually do. They should be specific what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. Such as allowing Religious based charities to receive funds to
provide services like food kitcken, homeless shelters, etc. organizations such as the Salvation Army would suffer.

However, if it is to provide government funds to promote religion I'm against.

[herbstin]

"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION,OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " (Capitolised words are my doing, to make emphasis.)

That IS the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It doesn't say anything about separation of church and state, or not supporting any religions, or not making any references to religion; or anything else the far left is always up in arms about.


I was born & raised Catholic, and have become agnostic (don't believe in organised religion), but I will concede that most main-stream religious run charities are far more efficient than any government or secular organisations that I've seen yet. It's been my experience that these types of charities are mostly interested in helping others, not themselves. They're not in it to buy votes, or publicity, or material wealth. (Not that there hasn't been the occasional individual who succumbed to temptation. But that doesn't happen like it does as part of the normal day-to-day affairs of organisations like WHO, the Dept of Health and Human Services,and sometimes within organisations like the Red Cross.) (And we won't get into the big television ministries, I don't recognise them as real religions).

Using established charitable networks to disburse federal funds should be a non-issue. If we're really nervous about it, insist on a complete accounting of where the money was spent. I, for one, would be more in favor of a faith-based charity to assist the less fortunate, than any bunch of big gov't wogs.